headers
Bernhard Reiter | 2 Feb 2009 14:21

Re: Please review our new charter

On Sonntag, 1. Februar 2009, jamesmikedupont@... wrote:
> we have a new charter for our new Free Software, Open source and
> Wikimedia organization,
>
> The idea is to create a local organization that promotes and supports
> * free/libre software
> * open source

Note that for software, "open source" is just a different word
for "free Software".
(The people use those different words for the same status of the software
out of different motivations.)

The way you wrote it above, it looks like you believe those are two different 
things, they are not.
It is a bit like saying, oh I like to eat apples, les pommes and äpfel.

Bernhard

--

-- 
FSFE -- Coordinator Germany                                   (fsfeurope.org)
Your donation makes our work possible:  www.fsfeurope.org/help/donate.en.html

On Sonntag, 1. Februar 2009, jamesmikedupont@... wrote:
> we have a new charter for our new Free Software, Open source and
> Wikimedia organization,
>
> The idea is to create a local organization that promotes and supports
> * free/libre software
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
jamesmikedupont-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org | 2 Feb 2009 17:35
Gravatar

Re: Please review our new charter

I don't agree :

free software and open source have different meaning to many people.
If you look at the "open source" people at microsoft you will find
200+, but for "free software" only 23.

http://www.linkedin.com/search?proposalType=Y&newnessType=Y&search=&searchLocationType=Y&pplSearchOrigin=MDYS&currentCompany=cp&company=Microsoft+Corp&keywords=%22free+software%22

Now, opensource is a trademark and has a specific meaning,
we want to show support of that.

Free software is also a well defined term and has a specific meaning,
we want to show support of that.

We also want to show that we support free software more than open
source if we have a choice, but we do not always have this choice.

That is why we say "free software" and "open source"
because we want to say that we prefer the idea of free software to the
idea of "open source" but support both.

Also, most people want to just hear "open source" and are scared of
the the term "free software".

I have to fight to get the term free software into the charter, and
personally I am a big support of the fsf, and the fsfe even if I don't
agree all the time, I still support them.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.programmer/browse_thread/thread/df13c71a5e2522d7/27e066c16c474737?hl=en#27e066c16c474737
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
simo | 2 Feb 2009 22:04
Picon

Re: Please review our new charter

On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 17:35 +0100, jamesmikedupont@... wrote:
> I don't agree :
> 
> free software and open source have different meaning to many people.
> If you look at the "open source" people at microsoft you will find
> 200+, but for "free software" only 23.
> 
> http://www.linkedin.com/search?proposalType=Y&newnessType=Y&search=&searchLocationType=Y&pplSearchOrigin=MDYS&currentCompany=cp&company=Microsoft+Corp&keywords=%22free+software%22

How is a linkedIn flawed statistic (there are non MS employees in your
search why you imply they are all poeople that work or have worked at
Microsoft) based on a search term mean anything ?

> Now, opensource is a trademark and has a specific meaning,
> we want to show support of that.

False. Open Source is not a Trademark. And its meaning is also often not
as clear as some people want you to believe, at least not in common
people's minds.

> Free software is also a well defined term and has a specific meaning,
> we want to show support of that.
> 
> We also want to show that we support free software more than open
> source if we have a choice, but we do not always have this choice.

can you give me examples of software that is Free Software but not Open
Source or OS but not FS ?

Simo.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
list | 3 Feb 2009 17:53
Picon
Favicon

Re: Please review our new charter

Am Montag, dem 02. Feb 2009 schrieb simo:

> > Now, opensource is a trademark and has a specific meaning,
> > we want to show support of that.
> 
> False. Open Source is not a Trademark. And its meaning is also often not
> as clear as some people want you to believe, at least not in common
> people's minds.

Well, "Open Source" is not a trademark, but "Open Source Initiative 
Approved License" is.
http://opensource.org/trademark

However on that page you can read "To be eligible to use the mark, you 
must: * Only use the term "Open Source" to refer to software distributed 
under an OSI Approved License."
Does that mean, that you can use no other term, ie. "Free Software", or 
does it just mean, that the license must be OSI Approved?

> can you give me examples of software that is Free Software but not Open
> Source or OS but not FS ?

For example Open Watcom is Open Source, but not Free Software.
http://opensource.org/licenses/sybase.php

P.S.: I also prefer the term Free Software for my projects.

--

-- 
AKFoerster
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bernhard Reiter | 4 Feb 2009 09:44

Terminology (was: Please review our new charter)

On Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009, list@... wrote:
> > can you give me examples of software that is Free Software but not Open
> > Source or OS but not FS ?
>
> For example Open Watcom is Open Source, but not Free Software.
> http://opensource.org/licenses/sybase.php

Evaluating which license or other conditions best ensure the four freedoms
is a ever ongoing process (at least because legislation changes from day to 
day).

So there will always be examples where the leading experts are not sure about.
To me the leading experts are the major FSFs, Debian and OSI.
(At least those are the ones putting in significant time evaluating software
and licenses.)

Step back a few steps and this does not change the overal picture:
There is Free and un-free Software. 
Some groups use a different word for Free Software.

Bernhard

--

-- 
FSFE -- Coordinator Germany                                   (fsfeurope.org)
Your donation makes our work possible:  www.fsfeurope.org/help/donate.en.html

On Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009, list@... wrote:
> > can you give me examples of software that is Free Software but not Open
> > Source or OS but not FS ?
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
jamesmikedupont-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org | 4 Feb 2009 19:27
Gravatar

Re: Terminology (was: Please review our new charter)

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Bernhard Reiter <reiter@...> wrote:
> On Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009, list@... wrote:
>> > can you give me examples of software that is Free Software but not Open
>> > Source or OS but not FS ?
>>
>> For example Open Watcom is Open Source, but not Free Software.
>> http://opensource.org/licenses/sybase.php
>
> Evaluating which license or other conditions best ensure the four freedoms
> is a ever ongoing process (at least because legislation changes from day to
> day).
>
> So there will always be examples where the leading experts are not sure about.
> To me the leading experts are the major FSFs, Debian and OSI.
> (At least those are the ones putting in significant time evaluating software
> and licenses.)
>
> Step back a few steps and this does not change the overal picture:
> There is Free and un-free Software.
> Some groups use a different word for Free Software.

Well,
I see your perspective. And I appreciate your effort in explaining it.

I still don't agree, because for me free software is an ethical and
political movement that involves moral judgements.

Open source is just that, open source.
Now I support the free software movement, but I also support the open
source people to distance themselves from it.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
list | 5 Feb 2009 10:18
Picon
Favicon

Re: Terminology (was: Please review our new charter)

Am Mittwoch, dem 04. Feb 2009 schrieb jamesmikedupont@...:

> For example, lets say you spend all your effort, years and years you
> invested in creating a product and all of a sudden someone figures out
> how to go around your license and create a plug in that would allow
> someone to go around the barb wire you strung up, then you would do
> anything to stop them.

What exactly are you talking about?

> Now, these people like the idea of open source better,
> because they have no strings attached and they can choose to hide the
> source if they need to.

That is absolutely wrong!

It is true that the Free Software movement and the Open Source people
have different ideals and concentrate on different aspects. So they
are different groups. But they do support almost the same licenses 
(with only a few minor exceptions).
The Open Source initiative has approved all the software licenses of 
the GNU project and they also see the GPL as the most important license.

Hiding the source is also not allowed by the Open Source definition.
See point 2.

There are (unfortunately) licenses, that don't require modifications 
to be also free/open. Those are accepted as Free Software as well as 
as Open Source. So, there is also no difference.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
simo | 4 Feb 2009 20:40
Picon

Re: Terminology (was: Please review our new charter)

On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 19:27 +0100, jamesmikedupont@... wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Bernhard Reiter <reiter@...> wrote:
> > On Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009, list@... wrote:
> >> > can you give me examples of software that is Free Software but not Open
> >> > Source or OS but not FS ?
> >>
> >> For example Open Watcom is Open Source, but not Free Software.
> >> http://opensource.org/licenses/sybase.php
> >
> > Evaluating which license or other conditions best ensure the four freedoms
> > is a ever ongoing process (at least because legislation changes from day to
> > day).
> >
> > So there will always be examples where the leading experts are not sure about.
> > To me the leading experts are the major FSFs, Debian and OSI.
> > (At least those are the ones putting in significant time evaluating software
> > and licenses.)
> >
> > Step back a few steps and this does not change the overal picture:
> > There is Free and un-free Software.
> > Some groups use a different word for Free Software.
> 
> Well,
> I see your perspective. And I appreciate your effort in explaining it.
> 
> I still don't agree, because for me free software is an ethical and
> political movement that involves moral judgements.
> 
> Open source is just that, open source.
> Now I support the free software movement, but I also support the open
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
jamesmikedupont-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org | 4 Feb 2009 22:15
Gravatar

Re: Terminology (was: Please review our new charter)

Hows this,
we just quote stallman like this :
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/09/15/rms_why_open_source_needs/

"""The free software movement, since its inception in 1984, has had a
political goal, political in the highest sense of the word. We are
concerned with the question of what kind of society we should live in.
We believe that computer users should have the freedom to share and
change software, and we developed the GNU operating system for that
purpose. (Linux, the kernel that Linus Torvalds wrote, is normally
used together with GNU, in the GNU/Linux combination; see Linux and
the GNU Project.)

The open source movement was founded in 1998 by people who wanted to
talk about our system without mentioning the political ideals that
motivated us to develop it. They got lots of publicity, and as a
result most of the users of our software think it was developed under
the name of open source for apolitical reasons. A recent survey showed
that more developers prefer the affiliation with free software, on
account of our principles, but the users get a misleading picture of
this. That picture contributes to the political weakness in our
community.
"""

So he talks about two movements,
you are saying that they are one. So, I can just define my terms as such :

"""the Free Software and Open Source Association of Kosova ASLH
supports the free software movement
and the open source movement, but prefers the Free software movement
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
MJ Ray | 5 Feb 2009 10:22
Gravatar

Re: Terminology (was: Please review our new charter)

"jamesmikedupont@..."
<jamesmikedupont@...> wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/09/15/rms_why_open_source_needs/ [...]
> The open source movement was founded in 1998 by people who wanted to
> talk about our system without mentioning the political ideals that
> motivated us to develop it. [...]

Much respect for Stallman, but I don't think that's accurate.  He
wasn't at the founding meeting (which was a bug), the initial
statement http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html doesn't reflect
that and I don't think anyone can seriously think ESR is scared of
politics.  Maybe the open source movement was promoted, encouraged
(co-opted?) by people who wanted to avoid mentioning the political
ideals, but I don't think it was founded by them.

Anyway, if one wants to promote free software, speak about free
software.  Don't obsess about what open source is doing.  Play the
ball, not the other player.

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Stefano Maffulli | 5 Feb 2009 08:30
Picon

Re: Terminology (was: Please review our new charter)

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:15 PM, jamesmikedupont@...
<jamesmikedupont@...> wrote:
> So he talks about two movements, you are saying that they are one.

RMS talks about two movements, but Simo is talking about the software:
two separate things. At the moment one can safely assume that all
software classified as Free/LIbre by FSF standard is also Open Source
by OSI standard.

Once you get that distinction you'll be able to improve your charter
and do good to your country

/stef
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bernhard Reiter | 5 Feb 2009 11:29
Picon
Favicon

Movements (was: Terminology (was: Please review our new charter))

On Donnerstag, 5. Februar 2009, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:15 PM, jamesmikedupont@...
>
> <jamesmikedupont@...> wrote:
> > So he talks about two movements, you are saying that they are one.
>
> RMS talks about two movements, but Simo is talking about the software:
> two separate things. At the moment one can safely assume that all
> software classified as Free/LIbre by FSF standard is also Open Source
> by OSI standard.
>
> Once you get that distinction you'll be able to improve your charter
> and do good to your country

Simo, Stef, thanks for explaning my point, you've did a good job!

Note on the subject of movements, there is a completely seperate issue:
The FSFE maintains that there is one movement, though there are at least two 
subgroups one being "Free Software people" and others "Open Source people".
In brief our reasons for speaking about one movement are that
we cannot conquer the word "movement" and that even "Open Source people" are 
not completely politic-agnostic and having and influence on society. 
Scientists usually will understand "social movement" or "cultural movement"
in a much larger grouping of the topic, so they will most likely see one 
movement. (Here I again prefer the wording "Free Software movement".)

Oh, btw, Richard is not the only one that thinks and speaks 
about Free Software, so quoting him is not authoritative on the whole movement 
nor on all major FSFs. I believe the FSFE position on this matter has 
convinced a number of Free Software leaders over the years, including Richard
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
David Gerard | 5 Feb 2009 16:08
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Movements (was: Terminology (was: Please review our new charter))

>> RMS talks about two movements, but Simo is talking about the software:
>> two separate things. At the moment one can safely assume that all
>> software classified as Free/LIbre by FSF standard is also Open Source
>> by OSI standard.

For pedants: there have been some exceptions. The Netscape Public
License is FSF "free software" but not OSI "open source" as it gave
special privileges to Netscape. (I checked with Danese Cooper at OSI
on this question in 2002 and she confirmed this.) However, Netscape
used its NPL powers to relicense all NPL files as Mozilla Public
License, which is acceptable to both.

I don't know of any license that's OSI-approved that isn't also FSF
"free software".

- d.
Permalink | Reply |
headers
list | 5 Feb 2009 18:45
Picon
Favicon

Re: Movements (was: Terminology (was: Please review our new charter))

Am Donnerstag, dem 05. Feb 2009 schrieb David Gerard:

> For pedants: there have been some exceptions.
[...]

> I don't know of any license that's OSI-approved that isn't also FSF
> "free software".

As I mentioned, I remember the license for Open Watcom was rejected
by the FSF. I don't know the exact reasons anymore.
But the reasons for rejecting the NASA Open Source Agreement is still
there on their licenses page...

But I did not want to harp on that. We all agree that those are just 
few exceptions. All in all Free Software and Open Source accept almost
the same licenses. Saying "different viewpoints in one community" 
sounds good for me.

--

-- 
AKFoerster
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Matthias Kirschner | 5 Feb 2009 12:21
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Movements (was: Terminology (was: Please review our new charter))

* Bernhard Reiter <bernhard@...> [2009-02-05 11:29:33 +0100]:

> Note on the subject of movements, there is a completely seperate issue:
> The FSFE maintains that there is one movement, though there are at least
> two subgroups one being "Free Software people" and others "Open Source
> people".  In brief our reasons for speaking about one movement are that
> we cannot conquer the word "movement" and that even "Open Source people"
> are not completely politic-agnostic and having and influence on society.
> Scientists usually will understand "social movement" or "cultural
> movement" in a much larger grouping of the topic, so they will most
> likely see one movement. (Here I again prefer the wording "Free Software
> movement".)

Fully agree :)

> Oh, btw, Richard is not the only one that thinks and speaks 
> about Free Software, so quoting him is not authoritative on the whole movement 
> nor on all major FSFs. I believe the FSFE position on this matter has 
> convinced a number of Free Software leaders over the years, including Richard
> (the quote was from 2002 or so).

E.g. here a quote from Richard in one of his latest interviews [1]:

    "Free software" and "open source" are the names of two different
    political viewpoints within the free software community - the
    community built by the free software movement.

I think that is much better than talking about differnent movements.

Best wishes,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
MJ Ray | 5 Feb 2009 11:13
Gravatar

Re: Terminology (was: Please review our new charter)

Stefano Maffulli <smaffulli@...> wrote:
> [...] At the moment one can safely assume that all
> software classified as Free/LIbre by FSF standard is also Open Source
> by OSI standard. [...]

If anyone cares about the differences between the actual approvals, a
current pseudo-diff is at
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/fsf-osi-list-diff.txt

Many of the differences are a result of process differences.  As I
understand it, a lawyer advocates a licence in the OSI process, so it
requires the licensor to contribute (and many licensors couldn't care
less about OSI); but FSF does an independent review, so FSF has to
decide it's worth reviewing.  In case it's not obvious, I think FSF's
independent foundation-led review is much the better of those two.

There are two licences that OSI approved but FSF lists as non-free:
NASA Open Source Agreement and the Reciprocal Public License.  Both of
these are "send-back-ware" which many debian developers agree are
non-free (OSI's OSDefinition is based on the Debian Free Software
Guidelines), but I think an early OSI advisor thought was a good idea,
so those approvals look like an OSI bug to me.

Hope that helps,
--

-- 
MJ Ray (slef)
Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small
worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
(Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Sam Liddicott | 5 Feb 2009 10:10

Re: Terminology

* Stefano Maffulli wrote, On 05/02/09 07:30:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:15 PM, jamesmikedupont@...
> <jamesmikedupont@...> wrote:
>   
>> So he talks about two movements, you are saying that they are one.
>>     
>
> RMS talks about two movements, but Simo is talking about the software:
> two separate things. At the moment one can safely assume that all
> software classified as Free/LIbre by FSF standard is also Open Source
> by OSI standard.
>
> Once you get that distinction you'll be able to improve your charter
> and do good to your country
>   
I think you've touched the root of many misunderstandings on this 
mailing list.

Thank-you

Sam
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Noah Slater | 2 Feb 2009 18:41
Gravatar

Re: Please review our new charter

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 05:35:08PM +0100, jamesmikedupont@... wrote:
> I have to fight to get the term free software into the charter, and
> personally I am a big support of the fsf, and the fsfe even if I don't
> agree all the time, I still support them.

This must be a joke, or a misunderstanding.

You had to fight to get the Free Software Foundation Europe to include this?

--

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Permalink | Reply |
headers
jamesmikedupont-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org | 2 Feb 2009 18:51
Gravatar

Re: Please review our new charter

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@...> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 05:35:08PM +0100, jamesmikedupont@... wrote:
>> I have to fight to get the term free software into the charter, and
>> personally I am a big support of the fsf, and the fsfe even if I don't
>> agree all the time, I still support them.
>
> This must be a joke, or a misunderstanding.
>
> You had to fight to get the Free Software Foundation Europe to include this?
>

This is a misunderstanding.

I had to fight with the other supporters of the conference, not all
have the free software background that I have.

We have had *no* support from anyone on this effort, it has been my
personal effort.

 Only recently have we gotten enough people to form a NGO in Kosovo.
But we do not have any official support from any open source
organization at the moment. We hope that when the first conference
takes place peacefully and successfully that people will jump on the
bandwagon.

here is my letter describing the project,
in english and albanian.
http://code.google.com/p/sfck/wiki/PageName
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Noah Slater | 2 Feb 2009 19:50
Gravatar

Re: Please review our new charter

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 06:51:41PM +0100, jamesmikedupont@... wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@...> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 05:35:08PM +0100,
jamesmikedupont@... wrote:
> >> I have to fight to get the term free software into the charter, and
> >> personally I am a big support of the fsf, and the fsfe even if I don't
> >> agree all the time, I still support them.
> >
> > This must be a joke, or a misunderstanding.
> >
> > You had to fight to get the Free Software Foundation Europe to include this?
> >
>
> This is a misunderstanding.

Great, thanks for the clarification!

--

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Noah Slater | 2 Feb 2009 14:55
Gravatar

Re: Please review our new charter

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 02:21:53PM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> On Sonntag, 1. Februar 2009, jamesmikedupont@... wrote:
> > we have a new charter for our new Free Software, Open source and
> > Wikimedia organization,
> >
> > The idea is to create a local organization that promotes and supports
> > * free/libre software
> > * open source
>
> Note that for software, "open source" is just a different word
> for "free Software".
> (The people use those different words for the same status of the software
> out of different motivations.)
>
> The way you wrote it above, it looks like you believe those are two different
> things, they are not.
> It is a bit like saying, oh I like to eat apples, les pommes and äpfel.

Not at all.

Open Source is a development method, Free Software is a political movement.

Both of these things produce software as a byproduct.

They can, and should, be treated differently.

--

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bernhard Reiter | 2 Feb 2009 16:09

Re: Please review our new charter

On Montag, 2. Februar 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> > Note that for software, "open source" is just a different word
> > for "free Software".
> > (The people use those different words for the same status of the software
> > out of different motivations.)
> >
> > The way you wrote it above, it looks like you believe those are two
> > different things, they are not.
> > It is a bit like saying, oh I like to eat apples, les pommes and äpfel.
>
> Not at all.
>
> Open Source is a development method, Free Software is a political movement.

"Open Source" is by design a different word for Free Software.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060924132033/www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php
"The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software."

Regarding software, both mean the same status, 
that the software user has all four freedoms.
Software itself cannot be a group of people.

A software being fFree Software does not say much about the development model,
you can still completely develop it in a closed way.
In other words: An "Open Source" software can be developed "closed".
And proprietary software (aka "unfree") can be developed in the open.

> Both of these things produce software as a byproduct.
> They can, and should, be treated differently.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Noah Slater | 2 Feb 2009 17:11
Gravatar

Re: Please review our new charter

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 04:09:33PM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> "Open Source" is by design a different word for Free Software.
> http://web.archive.org/web/20060924132033/www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php
> "The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software."
>
> Regarding software, both mean the same status,
> that the software user has all four freedoms.
> Software itself cannot be a group of people.

The FSFE concerns its self with a LOT more than just software. It is also
important to support developers, groups, events, promotion, education, and all
the other things which might further the core set of principals. In this
respect, supporting Open Source and supporting Free Software is an important
distinction to make. Don't conflate the two just because the byproduct is the
same. This organisation is concerned the whole ecosystem surrounding that.

> If you want to foster open development, why not say so?
> It spreads confusion to let people think "open source" and "free software"
> are different status attributed of software. Overall they are not.
> (Experts like Debian, FSF and OSI sometimes discuss details, but this does not
> change the situation that it is all the same by design.)

The FSFE is not planning to do this, from my reading. They are making a
statement that they wish to support Open Source and Free Software as separate
groups, which is a fantastic thing.

--

-- 
Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bernhard Reiter | 4 Feb 2009 09:38

Re: Please review our new charter

On Montag, 2. Februar 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 04:09:33PM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > "Open Source" is by design a different word for Free Software.
> > http://web.archive.org/web/20060924132033/www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq
> >.php "The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free
> > software."
> >
> > Regarding software, both mean the same status,
> > that the software user has all four freedoms.
> > Software itself cannot be a group of people.
>
> The FSFE concerns its self with a LOT more than just software. It is also
> important to support developers, groups, events, promotion, education, and
> all the other things which might further the core set of principals.

True, we do. We cannot prevent other people inventing new names
for the status of Software that mean the same, examples
	"open source" (marketing-term)
	"libre software" (a new attempt to avoid missunderstandings)
	"foss"	      (try-not-to-hurt-anybody-but-probably-not-clear-about-it-myself)
	"floss"	      (even-more-embracing-attempt-or-in-need-of-cleaning-teeth)
;)

> In this respect, supporting Open Source and supporting Free Software is an
> important distinction to make. 

Regarding software it is not a distinction, 
still it is important which term to use as some are harder to understand
as others and the group of people coming up with the terms have different 
agendas. The Open Source Initiative for instance wanted to sell Free Software
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Matthias Kirschner | 3 Feb 2009 13:20
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Please review our new charter

* Noah Slater <nslater@...> [2009-02-02 16:11:58 +0000]:

> The FSFE is not planning to do this, from my reading. They are making a
> statement that they wish to support Open Source and Free Software as separate
> groups, which is a fantastic thing.

Why do you think FSFE consider them as seperated groups? 

I personally do not consider Open Source and Free Software as seperate
_groups_. They are different names for the same thing. Open Source is a
failed marketing term for Free Software. Free Software is the better
term, that is why we had the "We speak about Free Software" [1]
campaign.

Best wishes,
Matthias

  1. http://www.fsfeurope.org/documents/whyfs.en.html
--

-- 
Deputy  German Coordinator, Fellowship Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) []         (http://fsfeurope.org)
Join the Fellowship of FSFE!         [][][]       (http://fsfe.org/join)
Your donation powers our work!         ||  (http://fsfeurope.org/donate)
Permalink | Reply |
headers
jamesmikedupont-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org | 3 Feb 2009 22:15
Gravatar

Re: Please review our new charter

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Matthias Kirschner <mk@...> wrote:
> * Noah Slater <nslater@...> [2009-02-02 16:11:58 +0000]:
>
>> The FSFE is not planning to do this, from my reading. They are making a
>> statement that they wish to support Open Source and Free Software as separate
>> groups, which is a fantastic thing.
>
> Why do you think FSFE consider them as seperated groups?
>
> I personally do not consider Open Source and Free Software as seperate
> _groups_. They are different names for the same thing. Open Source is a
> failed marketing term for Free Software. Free Software is the better
> term, that is why we had the "We speak about Free Software" [1]
> campaign.

Well, I also speak about free software, but I also speak about open
source. I agree that free software is better, and it is my first
choice, but if I cannot have this freedom and I am given only "open
source" then I am practical and I use that as well.
We are talking about a nation that is struggling to survive and people
who just want jobs, many have heard about open source, and we need to
reach them to tell them about free software.

So I have to remain firm that we will also talk about open source,
because that is what people know. I am willing to expand on why free
software is better and be more distinct, if you want to help I would
be grateful.

I would love to have your comments or suggestions on the charter on
how to make it better. I am open to your comments, and we need to get
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Bernhard Reiter | 4 Feb 2009 09:30

Terminology (was: Please review our new charter)

On Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009, jamesmikedupont@... wrote:
> Well, I also speak about free software, but I also speak about open
> source. I agree that free software is better, and it is my first
> choice, but if I cannot have this freedom and I am given only "open
> source" then I am practical and I use that as well.

I was criticising _how_ you have used "open source".

You did use it in a way that people will falsely let to me believe that
it those might be different states for one piece of software, which is wrong.
I consider it okay to start where people stand, using the terms they know,
and then go to a better explained state.

Usually I use it like
	Free Software (another word for it is "Open Source") is good for society
	and business.

Or 
	Free Software (some say "Open Source") will foster equal chances in
	education

Maybe 
	Free Software (Open Source) is good for science because someone can
	try to falsify the results and learn from how the other have done it.

But "apples, les pommes and äpfel" let me believe there are three different 
kind of fuits on the table. Personally I even find this worse than 
using "Open Source" consitantly. If you would  do that, at least you were 
clear about what it is which is a precondition for telling anybody - and 
other people would understand me criticising you for this choice as Free
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |

Gmane